1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

The Village Common Forest Project, Bangladesh (VCF) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 354, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Animation Liberate For Organize (ALO) - Bangladesh', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 354, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Animation Liberate For Organize (ALO) - Bangladesh', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 354, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Animation Liberate For Organize (ALO) - Bangladesh', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Active participation with innovative ideas to change livelihood adapting parmanent farming in hill region.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: (1) To show/demonstrate how to live on hill farming and sustain livelihood in degraded situation and (2) To show how to utilize hill slopes for better production system.

Methods: Contact with line agencies after having land ownership. Discussion among the members. Collection of planting materials from BARI. Gradual and sequential implementation in selected area. Adaption to cope with the labor shortage and capital.

Stages of implementation: Ensure credit from bank (Agricultural Bank). Planting seedlings and /or grafted planting materials collected from BARI, Watch and ward.

Role of stakeholders: Active participation of both male and female members of the family.

Other important information: Asisstance from other agencies like Directorate of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Chittagong Hill Tracts Development Board (CHTDB) and District adminstration to get the land ownership and technolgy adoption enhances the initiative.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Pineapples along the contour, inter-cropping with long-term fruit trees, forest on top and bamboo at lower part of the hill slopes.)

Better livelihood, more income, self employment and utilization of degreded hiill areas.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Technical: Layout of pineapple along the contour; choice fruit trees suitable for the area, aspect and position on slope. Financial: Lack of fund for plantation, fertilizer, seed or seedlings, labor.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	self-mobilization	Mainly:Training, rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; Initative from BARI was implemented through motivating and training the target farmers.
planning	interactive	Motivation, local knowledge; One to one and group approach.
implementation	interactive	casual labour; Labor shortage in peek period is one of the major constraints. To overcome the gap they share each other. Labor cost about $1.5/mandays. Wman labor paid less than the male labor.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Mainly: interviews/questionnaires; partly: measurements/observations; Poor monitoring and evaluation of the farming system. Casual staff visit insufficient for having feed back.
Research	none	on-farm; Data collection and feedback.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Better land use supported to reseach and development issues on hill farming

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. By imparting training and input support

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• courses

Subjects covered:

How to plan, planting in contour and maintaining

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory and innovation; Key elements: 1 to 1, Emphasis on demonstration and documentation; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents 2) Advisory service was carried out through: projects own extension structure and agents; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Mostly male members are included for motivating.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Very weak linkage among the line organization

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Sometime they visit the farmer for backup support of research.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Data collection through observation or estimation. Basic reseach findings are absent.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Loan from bank): 80.0%; other (Input): 20.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Interest rate charged: 6.0%; repayment conditions: To be paid in one year otherwise compound interest is charged..

Interest was lower than market rate.

Specify credit receivers:

Woman are not illegible to get loan.

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

Fund constraints, inadequate marketing facilities. Weak marketing facilities may disrupt their wishes.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Permanent profession. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More materials, biocides and equipment support.)
Awarness developed. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strenthening training and motivation.)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Training and supportive inputs were provided. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Timely and adequate inputs should be provided.)
Monitoring and suppervision by BARI. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More frequent and structured.)
Changes in attitude of the farmer. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Promotion of marketing specially agro base industry for pershable produces.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lack of fund.	Fund from local bank should be provided.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Gender issues weakly addressed.	More female members should be included.
Soil health preservation.	Awarness to lookafter soil health improvement issues.
Uncertain marketing system.	Establishment of agrobase industry.
Inacessibility to the marketing due peek production piriod.	Dimand driven production.
Input base farming(lack of biocides).	ensure all inputs.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information